Homemade SBS without tax stamp

[Novus Collectus]

Just a query to see if it is even worth bothering to ask the technical division of the ATF about the legality of this.

Muzzle loaders are not covered under the NFA as I understand it, so how about a muzzleloading smoothbore pistol, or SBS firing buckshot (for home defense and/or novelty)?
Now I know that obviously these are legal or else the Lemat replica would be a felony to own, but here are the oddball questions that I wonder about.

Taking a modern shotgun barrell and cut it down and convert it to muzzleloading that uses smokeless powder (if it is to be used for home defense, then BP may get damp over time and be unreliable so smokless powder might be better maybe).
Now I know that it is still a modern firearm in both the NFA and the GCA if the fixed ammo shotgun is converted to Muzzloading, but I was thinking about making a whole new reciever/frame for the converted barrel that would have a threaded, but plugged breech. Think the ATF would have a problem with that?



I have also been wondering something for a long time now too and that is a 20 or a 12 gage pistol with a new reciever and a rifled shotgun barrel. The NFA says that a "pistol" not covered in the Act has to have a rifled bore, and a firearm has to fire sporting ammunition if it is over .50 inch in bore size (groove to groove measurment for handguns). Now obviously a 12 gage shotgun shell is sporting ammunition, but in a pistol? Would the application the "sporting ammunition" is used for change its designation? If so, then would that make the pistol an AOW, or a Destructive Device?

 

[mp510]

Taking a modern shotgun barrell and cut it down and convert it to muzzleloading that uses smokeless powder (if it is to be used for home defense, then BP may get damp over time and be unreliable so smokless powder might be better maybe).
Now I know that it is still a modern firearm in both the NFA and the GCA if the fixed ammo shotgun is converted to Muzzloading, but I was thinking about making a whole new reciever/frame for the converted barrel that would have a threaded, but plugged breech. Think the ATF would have a problem with that?

The BATFE has ruled that a muzzle loading firearms built on a firearm reciever (ie the conversions solde by TC for the Encore Contender, Mossberg for the 500, or the custom SKS, Mausers, some early Savages, et-al) are not reclassified as antiques once converted, and are thus still firearms and are thus covered by the provisions of the Gun Conrol Act and National Firearms Act. You would need an appropriate tax stamp for that project. http://atf.treas.gov/firearms/firearmstech/072205antiquefirearm.pdf

I have also been wondering something for a long time now too and that is a 20 or a 12 gage pistol with a new reciever and a rifled shotgun barrel. The NFA says that a "pistol" not covered in the Act has to have a rifled bore, and a firearm has to fire sporting ammunition if it is over .50 inch in bore size (groove to groove measurment for handguns). Now obviously a 12 gage shotgun shell is sporting ammunition, but in a pistol? Would the application the "sporting ammunition" is used for change its designation? If so, then would that make the pistol an AOW, or a Destructive Device?

An 40mm M203 launcher is an M203 launcher, and required a tax stamp whether you are launching chalk, HE, or buckshot out of it (or just hanging it on the wall for that matter.) The catch-22 is that the explosive ammunition requires a DD tax stamp, at $200 per round.

 

[Novus Collectus]

The BATFE has ruled that a muzzle loading firearms built on a firearm reciever (ie the conversions solde by TC for the Encore Contender, Mossberg for the 500, or the custom SKS, Mausers, some early Savages, et-al) are not reclassified as antiques once converted, and are thus still firearms and are thus covered by the provisions of the Gun Conrol Act and National Firearms Act. You would need an appropriate tax stamp for that project.

Yes, that is why I said the reciever/frame would be made from scratch and not from what the NFA or the GCA consider a modern firearm reciever.

An 40mm M203 launcher is an M203 launcher, and required a tax stamp whether you are launching chalk, HE, or buckshot out of it (or just hanging it on the wall for that matter.) The catch-22 is that the explosive ammunition requires a DD tax stamp, at $200 per round.

A grenade launcher does not fit into their definition of "sporting purposes" and the ammunition for it is not sporting ammunition to them, but shotgun shells are. That is why I asked about shotgun shells.
Even though a 12 gage is over .50 inch bore, it is allowed in longuns and is not covered under the NFA because it is "sporting ammunition" according to them.

 

[wdlsguy]

If so, then would that make the pistol an AOW, or a Destructive Device?

You would need to run this by the NFA Branch. They consider a > .50 caliber rifled shotgun a shotgun, not a large-bore rifle, so they might consider your > .50 caliber rifled pistol an AOW, not a destructive device.

 

[Outlaws]

So you basically just want to use an existing barrel and build everything else yourself?

 

[Novus Collectus]

The only reasons I would want to use an existing barrel for the muzzleloader is because I know it can handle smokeless powder loads. But to answer your question, yes I plan on making the reciever/frame myself in this theoretical.

If I made the pistol firing 12 gage shells, I would use a cut down slug barrel because I know I could not make my own rifled barrel. The reciever for that could be a new manufacture receiver i would buy as a handgun reciever.

 

[Hemicuda]

TC Contender in .45 Long Colt/.410 Bore, with a 10", 12", 14" or 16" barrel... a legal to own, legal to shoot shotgun/pistol!

 

[Novus Collectus]

Yes, but what about a pistol with a bore bigger than .50 caliber? One in 12 gage which is "sporting ammunition" otherwise.

 

[ctdonath]

Smooth-bore pistols are NFA items, to wit "Any Other Weapon" (AOW). $5 transfer, $200 manufacture tax.

 

[Novus Collectus]

I am not talking about a smoothbore pistol shooting fixed ammo, but rather a rifled bore.

I am not talking about an NFA weapon because the other one is a muzzleloader which is most likely not covered under NFA.....like the Lemat smoothbore muzzleloading shotgun pistol.

 

[RyanM]

A few things to consider.

12 gauge is limited to 11,500 PSI. That's black powder pressures, so a 12 gauge shotgun barrel will not be significantly stronger in construction than a 12 gauge smoothbore muzzleloader of modern manufacture.

The wide chamber on a cartridge shotgun will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to load, unless you hack off quite a bit of the rear of the barrel. IIRC, there are various chokes and constrictions in the first 7" of the barrel. The area past that is not required to take the full 11,500 PSI of pressure, so it may not be strong enough to. That's part of why barrels will get ringed (or worse) if you try to shoot out a stuck bullet by firing a blank cartridge.

Old civil war era cannon have been found, fully loaded, on ships that were sunk. When the cannonballs were pulled out, most were found to have completely dry powder, still perfectly good. Smokeless powder is sensitive to moisture as well, anyway, so there's not much advantage there in terms of ignition reliability. And muzzleloading shotguns loaded with shot probably have the worst seal of any muzzleloader.

Also, the definition of an antique is dependent on the ignition system; fuse, matchlock, flintlock, or percussion cap. I don't know what the exception is that allows some guns to use shotgun primers, so you'd have to look long and hard into the laws to see exactly how your gun would need to be made to legally use primers. If you're stuck with percussion caps, you would need to use black powder, if only a small booster charge. Percussion caps are not hot enough to light some powders. From experience, it seems that they will set off Bullseye just fine, but Power Pistol will just fizzle.

Smokeless powder in any muzzleloading arm which actually loads through the muzzle, regardless of construction strength, is a very risky affair. Black powder is relatively insensitive to amount of powder, weight of the projectile, and amount of compression, in terms of pressure generated. Smokeless, on the other hand, varies wildly. Put in a bit too much shot, or push down too hard when loading, or put in a little too much powder, and you may just earn yourself a nickname like "Faceless Joe." With cartridges, you have a much easier time seeing how much powder is in, and controlling exactly how much the powder is confined. And people still blow up cartridge guns all the time. If loading one of the modern cap and ball revolvers with smokeless, you can do much the same, since the cylinder can basically be considered a multi-shot cartridge. But with actual muzzleloaders, it's a very, very risky proposition.

Your best bet is probably to give these guys a call or e-mail http://www.bigironbarrels.com/ , and ask how much it would cost for a custom made muzzleloading shotgun which will safely handle smokeless loads.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Huge help RyanM,

About the percussion cap though, it says "or similar type of ignition system" in the definition of antiques and I think that includes shotgun primers. I believe that is why inline muzzloading rifles using shotgun primers are also exempt from the GCA and I would assume if someone made a .58 caliber musket using shotgun primers it would probably be legal as well..

 

[Novus Collectus]

A grenade launcher does not fit into their definition of "sporting purposes" and the ammunition for it is not sporting ammunition to them, but shotgun shells are. That is why I asked about shotgun shells.
Even though a 12 gage is over .50 inch bore, it is allowed in longuns and is not covered under the NFA because it is "sporting ammunition" according to them.

Looks like I may have been right.
http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=5980
28 gage is larger than .50.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

Careful now, the way it's written, the Secretary could just as easily declare any particular shotgun shell a "destructive device" with the stroke of a pen.

"... 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f).
(1)
(2) Any weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes..."

Of course, it takes a certain, shall we say creative interpretation, but that's how certain shotguns became "destructive devices" in the first place. I'm just a layman, but the language they used in 1934 is the same language I would have included to Exclude shotguns from the NFA. Otherwise, the way it's written, it would seem that the Secretary must any particular shotgun or shotgun shell is particularly suitable for "sporting purposes."

D'ya ever wonder why it's not written "... except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is NOT generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes?"

 

[Novus Collectus]

Sure, must be careful, but it looks as if Taurus may be setting the precedent and although the Secretary can change their mind, an established precedent is hard to overcome. It seems apparent that a 12 gage handgun with rifling may be legal just as a 28 gage seems to be without a tax stamp.

 

[lobo9er]

if you do this take pictures before ATF shows up and takes it so you can show us what you did

 

[Sam1911]

.50 caliber rifled pistol an AOW, not a destructive device.

Nope. The shotgun pistol portion of the AOW definitions state it must be SMOOTH bore. That's how the Judge and Rampaging Judge revolvers, etc. are getting around the problem.

 

[LiENUS]

aren't the judge and rampaging judge available with rifled bores. I thought they got around it because they chamber a .410 shell which is smaller than 50 cal and also chamber 45 lc

 

[Sam1911]

LiENUS,

That's what I said in post 17, right above yours.

Here's what I posted on that topic in the Raging Judge thread:

Couldn't they put in some very shallow, very slow twist rifling that would be essentially insignificant yet still satisfy the requirements of the law?

That certainly would cover that portion of the law that partially defines an NFA Any Other Weapon as, "...a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell..."

It doesn't answer the question of an NFA large bore Destructive Device, which is "... any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes..."

If it fires a shotshell and is a revolver, it is not an AOW if the bore is rifled.

It is clearly larger than one-half inch diameter so it certainly could be a DD. However, most shotguns are exempted as being particularly suitable for sporting purposes.

BUT, this is not a shotgun at all as defined by the NFA, as it states:

"The term ''shotgun'' means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell."

So...this is indeed a mystery.

Of course, various rifle cartridges have long been exempted from the DD classification -- such as the .577 and .600 caliber big game cartridges, and JD Jones' 14.5 JDJ round. So...

My guess is that someone from Taurus has had a series of in-depth conversations with the ATF Tech Branch and has gotten an o.k. on this.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Sam1911 I think the operative word in the statute is "shotgun shell" the secretary says has a sporting purpose.
Remember this thread? I think this question has come up before, but for a rifle.

 

[Sam1911]

Certainly, the odd expression "shotgun shell" is included there. Odd, in that in no way are shot shells -- or any other (non-explosive) ammo regulated by the NFA -- but in this case the law seems to state that the gun is in some way defined by its ammo, which doesn't make much sense considering that both "sporting" and "destructive device" 12 ga. shotguns (as examples) can fire all of the same shells.

Also even odder considering the stilted (and grammatically questionable) language of "weapons ... except a shotgun or shotgun shell..." which leads one to ask when has a shotgun shell been considered a weapon?

 

[GoWolfpack]

how about a muzzleloading smoothbore pistol

Like this one?